Thirty days for a withdrawal of the petition to declare bankruptcy - an Event of Default in the IETA Master Agreement
- Category: IETA Agreements - Commentary
Under the point 12.2 (d) (iv) of the IETA Master Agreement (Emissions Trading Master Agreement for the EU Scheme version 3.0) a party to the IETA agreement has only 30 days to cause the withdrawal of the petition to declare bankruptcy, filed to the court with respect to it. If it fails to do so, the other party of the IETA agreement is entitled to terminate the agreement as a consequence of an Event of Default.
Taking into account, that in some countries of the European Union judicial procedures are not so efficient and the period of 30 days is far too short to do anything in this respect, it may be the considerable risk . Let’s see, how it is working on the Polish market.
An error in the definition of Delivering Party’s Replacement Cost (Emissions Trading Master Agreement for the EU Scheme version 3.0)?
- Category: IETA Agreements - Commentary
It seems to be an error in the definition of Delivering Party’s Replacement Cost in the Emissions Trading Master Agreement for the EU Scheme version 3.0.
The method of accruing interest under the IETA Master Agreement and the Polish Civil Code
- Category: Emissions trading
The method for accruing interest under the Emissions Trading Master Agreement for the EU Scheme Version 3.0 2008 can evoke some problems and be a little embarrassing for a companies operating on a Polish market. We point at some possible solutions.
Emission trading schemes and rules on public aid – what is a relation between them?
Very interesting are considerations made by Court of the First Instance in the judgment of the of 10 April 2008 in Case T‑233/04, Kingdom of the Netherlands, supported by Federal Republic of Germany versus Commission of the European Communities, concerning the state aid issues in the emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides.
Admissibility of the ex-post adjustments in NAP’s
The following judgment of the Court of the First Instance is important, because it prejudges the legality and admissibility of ex–post adjustments in national allocation plans for emission allowances. It relates to Germany, but bearing in mind that precedent, a draft of a new Polish greenhouse gas emission trading statute (version of 23.06.20008 published on the site of Polish Ministry of the Nature Conservation) also provides for such adjustments. In this case the European Commission was opposite ex-post adjustments (as incompatible with the integrity of the scheme), but it failed in the court proceedings. In the aftermath of this case, in the third trading period 2013 – 2020 it is provided expressis verbis that no ex post adjustments are admissible.
The principle of equal treatment in the functioning of the EU ETS
How does operate the principle of equal treatment in relation to the EU ETS?
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 in Case C‑127/07 contributes to explaining this matter. It also concerns, as a preliminary ruling, the validity of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
Page 68 of 69